Hey, Al Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop, which is, by the way, what he's doing right now, selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at WallStreetWindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself, WallStreetWindow.com.
Hey, Al Scott here.
On average, how much do you think these interviews are worth to you?
Of course, I've never charged for my archives in a dozen years of doing this, and I'm not about to start.
But at Patreon.com slash Scott Horton Show, you can name your own prize to help support and make sure there's still new interviews to give away.
So what do you think?
Two bits?
A buck and a half?
There are usually about 80 interviews per month, I guess, so take that into account.
You can also cap the amount you'd be willing to spend in case things get out of hand around here.
That's Patreon.com slash Scott Horton Show.
And thanks, y'all.
All right, you guys.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
Check out the archives at ScottHorton.org, 4,500 something, almost, anyway, right around there, ScottHorton.org, LibertarianInstitute.org, and Twitter.com slash Scott Horton Show.
All right, on the line, I've got our good friend Dan McAdams.
He for years and years was Ron Paul's foreign policy advisor in his congressional office, and now he runs the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity at RonPaulInstitute.org, and he co-hosts the Liberty Report Daily with Ron Paul on their YouTube channel and at the Ron Paul Liberty Report website, which you can find at RonPaulLibertyReport.com.
It's a really great show, almost always foreign policy stuff, and both of them real experts.
Welcome back.
How are you doing, Dan?
Hi, Scott.
Very happy to talk with you again, and sorry, I'm asking you again to do me a favor and pick up the slack for me.
I've been sick.
Oh, man.
Down with the pox.
Luckily, not the small pox, just the chicken pox, but I'm all right.
But anyway, so I'm back, but I missed everything that happened.
I wouldn't even read, and I was just watching old skate videos and stuff and sleeping.
So I need to catch up.
The Islamic State attacked Iran.
What happened?
When?
What is the deal?
Well, that was back on the 7th, I believe, and it was a twin attack.
It was one at the shrine to the Ayatollah Khomeini and the other actually inside the Iranian parliament.
It was the first time ISIS took credit for it right away, and it's apparently the first time that ISIS has hit Iran inside Iranian territory.
So that marks kind of a departure in a way for Iran to be a victim, and it's obviously been very active fighting ISIS in Syria, regardless of what Washington might claim, and the proof is in the pudding.
Now they're getting hit because of it.
So I'm sure it's a very...
Not all American lawmakers thought it was a bad thing, but certainly many of them decried the loss of life there.
Yeah.
Well, talk about that for a minute.
Yeah.
Well, I was going to...
There was a discrepancy.
Wait.
What do you mean, not all?
Not all.
Wait, huh?
Yes, I know.
I was going to write about it, but now it's getting a little old, but over the weekend, Dana Rohrabacher, who can be very good on some things and take courageous stands, nevertheless has, in my view, rather a blind spot when it comes to the Middle East and other things, and certainly when it comes to non-interventionism as a philosophy, but he was in a hearing over the weekend, I think it was on anti-war, picked it up too, where he said, well, hang on a minute.
ISIS was attacking the mullahs in Iran.
So how is that a bad thing?
So essentially praising terrorist attacks on Iran, and I think there were Iranian civilians that were injured or killed as well.
So a pretty goofy thing to say.
Maybe he hadn't had his energy drinks that morning, but still, talk about foot in the mouth.
I mean, hopefully we're still at a point where we're not so insane as a country when it comes to Iran.
Hopefully there are still some people that say, hang on a minute.
That does not sound right.
You know what, though?
Help me, Dan, because, you know, I don't know.
I'm a very contrary person, but I try to be contrary to myself too, and I try to be devil's advocate as best I can.
I try to be as accusatory against Iran as they deserve, as best I can.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but it seems to me that their great sin in the 21st century anyway is that they tricked Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz into tricking George W.
Bush into overthrowing Saddam Hussein for them.
But that's all, so America's in no position to complain about that.
What else have they done?
What am I missing that makes Iran such a big deal?
I mean, hell, even to the Saudis, even to, I mean, I guess I understand why the Sunni Iraqis hate them.
But other than that, what's the big deal anyway?
Yeah, I mean, it's just it's amazing to hear the propaganda that they're the world's number one exporter of terrorism in the world and all of these things, you know, they're sending troops to fight overseas.
OK, but the subtile to that is they're fighting ISIS, which is supposed to be the enemy.
You know, they're fighting in Syria.
They don't attack the U.S.
They don't attack our genuine interests anywhere.
And as I'm hearing Ron Paul's voice in my ears, you know, they're not a perfect country.
This is what he wrote in his column today.
They're not a perfect country.
But then again, who is?
I mean, we're certainly a fall far short from that of that mark.
And the fact of the matter is, you know, let's look for a country.
I don't think Americans really understand this.
And I'm sure your listeners do because they're smart people.
But, you know, this is a country that has a large largest Jewish population outside of Israel in the Middle East.
They had, you know, photos and videos of Christians celebrating Easter there, you know, try either of those two things in Saudi Arabia are great allies.
So for whatever faults it may have, they're certain they also just had elections.
Let's not forget that.
So it's not to say that it's that any of us would love to live in a sort of essentially a theocracy.
However, when you say compared to what?
And I think that's where it gets a little bit.
Well, as you said, the attack was on their parliament.
Their what?
Their supreme leader's house?
No, their parliament.
Yeah.
As in, they got one.
As in, you know, for for all the hype about what a terrorist dictatorship the place is.
Yeah.
You know, it's not a temporary limited constitutional republic like us.
But then again, neither is the US.
Neither is us.
Yeah.
So, you know, the candidates have to be approved by the Religious Council, et cetera, et cetera.
OK, that's not probably not ideal.
But don't we have a similar thing here?
How well do third parties do?
How well does any party do that doesn't the challenges, delegates and the rest of it?
Sure.
The whole thing.
Yeah.
I mean, if anyone just Google Ron Paul 2012 and see what happens to you if you run for office.
You know, both parties conspire to to deprive you of votes that you even got.
So we've got a long way to go ourselves when it comes to a real multiparty democracy.
But now.
OK, so what about them throwing their weight around in the Middle East?
I mean, if you ask the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, they'll tell you it's the rise of the new Persian Empire.
Dan McAdams has got it all upside down.
The Mullahs are the center of evil.
They're the great Satan.
And we've got to do something about it.
I mean, are they what's the truth of that?
There's got to be something there.
Well, you know, I think the rule has got to be if anyone cites a Washington think tank or even, you know, one close to that, you've got to look at the donor list.
You've got to see who's giving you money because you pay and you play.
And that's how it works in Washington.
You look for the the Institute for the Study of War, for example, the Atlantic Council, a foundation for defense of democracies.
When they're not paid by the military industrial complex, they have big special interest donors.
So, you know, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
But the fact of the matter is, after the P5 plus one agreement, things have gone well.
They've checked out every time they want to do business.
They want to buy a bunch of Boeing's 737s as President Trump or candidate Trump might say.
What's so bad about that?
Right.
I'm with you.
I don't know what to say.
I'm trying to come up with my best argument.
And, you know, I have heard from someone.
It's a single source, but someone I consider to be a reliable source that it apparently is now true that the Iranians seem to be providing some arms to the Houthis.
But even if that's right, it's not really reliable.
Like I said, it's a single source.
But even if that is right, that's still only two years into the war that America and Saudi started against the Houthis on a completely trumped up pretext that they were a front for Iranian power there.
So and isn't it rich for the world's number one arms exporter to be saying, oh, how dare you?
You know, even though even though if the Houthis lose, an incredibly hostile force will be that much closer to you.
How dare you get involved?
You should just do what we say and, you know, don't look out for your own interests.
I mean, nobody else in the world is allowed to have interests that conflict with ours.
You know, it's just it's just incredible.
Yeah.
Well, or even the American people, like, for example, what you're talking about is the Houthis are keeping a lid on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula there.
Now, our government may love those guys and want to fly as their air force.
And I know they bomb them, too, but they also fight for them.
But if you ask the American people, hey, these are the only actual enemies of us on Earth.
Those who obey Zawahiri, right?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, the propaganda is so confusing.
I think it's designed that Americans simply don't know what to believe.
If you ask any American, and I had a conversation a few days ago with someone who was, you know, not some, let's put it that way.
And they're still completely clueless.
No, the Iranians, they sponsor terrorism everywhere.
You know, they're the number one sponsor of terrorism over and over again.
You know, they don't have a grounding.
And you probably saw this piece, Scott.
But Steve Kinzer, who we both, I think, admire, had a great piece in the Boston Globe a couple days ago about how Indonesia, the largest Muslim country on Earth, but a very, very moderate form of Islam.
All of a sudden, the Saudis are going over there spending tons of money exporting Wahhabism over there.
And the place is getting is getting very radicalized.
Not only did they kick out the mayor of Jakarta, who was a Christian, they actually threw him in jail for a generally very mild comment he made.
So this is radicalism worldwide.
Yeah, well, and the narrative, see, that's what's interesting about Dan Auerbacher, where we started this conversation here, is that here's a guy who knows enough about the world to know better.
Not that he does.
I mean, his judgment is often very flawed.
I hear him say, you know, we got to get out of Afghanistan so that we can focus on a line with Russia against China or just some off the wall kind of madness.
It's always something.
But but at least, you know, we know that he can picture Eurasia in his head and he's got he knows the difference between Pakistan and Iran as long as we're at it compared to other members of the House of Representatives.
That's pretty advanced.
And yet.
He seems to be, well, you know, caught up in the sloganeering and the and the kind of ideological underpinning that, yes, Iran and Shiite power is always nemesis, despite all evidence, despite all the history of not just, you know, the Afghan and Iraq wars, but the Obama years and the wars in Libya, in Syria.
Rohrabacher knows enough to be able to see, you know, as as David Stockman says it, he's not a purist, non interventionist.
I guess sometimes David Stockman says, hey, if anything, we should be aligned with the Shiites to destroy the Islamic State and the Al-Nusra Front and these terrorist groups.
I mean, I would never say that, but at least you can see he's got his head screwed on straight as to who's who and who's on whose side.
It seems like Rohrabacher, I don't know.
I'm not exactly sure what explains it, because it does seem to be the I guess what I'm trying to say seems to be the the triumph of ideology or or just, you know, repetitious sloganeering over common sense.
He does have a lot of knowledge.
I mean, we've all seen the pictures of him over there in his in his Mujahideen garb.
But, you know, he's he's he's been on the ground.
I mean, I think in his case, this might not be very kind, but a little knowledge is not necessarily a thing when you're not well grounded in a philosophy.
And I don't think he's grounded in philosophy.
I think he loves the idea of geopolitics, grand strategy and all these things, which I can't and I think it's it's all horrible.
But so without being grounded in a real philosophy and knowing a little bit about these places, he sees the world as a chessboard.
And I think that's such a dangerous thing.
Yeah.
All right.
So let's shift gears a little bit, as you say, the Iranians, they're at war against the Islamic State and the Al-Nusra Front in Iraq and in Syria.
And America, again, is on multiple sides of this conflict, you know, more than we can count.
Well, not more than we can count, but at least, you know, a few you have to stop to count to count.
And this includes now in the Trump years, not Barack Obama, in the Trump years, three different sets of strikes on Syrian government targets.
Is that correct?
Yeah, at least at least three.
Absolutely.
And that's coming just in the last couple of months.
And as a matter of fact, last week there were two.
And it is certainly a departure.
You know, the U.S. sets up its own base there inside Syrian territory.
It declares a de-confliction zone.
And then it says this is a well-established de-confliction zone.
And the Russians and Iranians, everyone says, really?
By whom?
Because we'd never heard of it before.
And so here you have militias in hot pursuit of ISIS and and the U.S. takes him out, you know, on the on on route.
And then you have Defense Secretary Mattis saying, well, these are Iran directed troops, militias.
And so he uses that to make it sound ominous.
Well, let me let me stop you just to nail it down for certain here.
These these troops, whether they're, you know, some combination of Iranian, Syrian and Hezbollah and whatever Iranian backed forces, I'd buy that for the sake of argument.
Anyway, the point I want to get to is it's it's certain that they're engaged in battles with the Islamic State, not necessarily these or those so-called moderates or Nusra or anybody else.
They're in the middle of a fight with the Islamic State and America hits them.
Yes, that's exactly what happened.
And so they're you know, they are they're militias.
They are they're close to, you know, they're Shia militias.
They're not the Syrian Arab Army, but they're certainly de facto fighting a Syrian Arab Army's fight.
And they're they're they're invited and they're attacking the people that we say are the enemies.
But the U.S. says you're coming too close to our guys here that we're training.
You're training yet another group of rebels who they've been basically holding hands with for a couple of years because these guys have not been able to prove themselves on the battlefield.
This is not the force that's going to take Raqqa.
That's a fact.
So I think facts on the ground are determining things faster than the U.S. can react.
And actually, you may have seen this, but today the commander of the Al-Quds force made a surprise visit to the to the Iraq-Syrian border to meet with his militias and his people that are fighting.
Well, so is it a problem then for the Americans that the so-called SDF, Syrian Defense Forces, which I understand is almost all Kurds and that the the Arab fighter part of it is sort of a marginal thing.
But is it the problem is that they don't really want to march on Raqqa because they don't want to try to take it and hold it.
And so why die trying?
I think the U.S., you know, has pushed Turkey into this camp.
They don't want they certainly don't want the SDF to control Raqqa.
So what's you know, what is the U.S. going to do with it if they do take it?
And that's a big if.
So, I mean, I can't imagine the Kurds are dummies.
They're not going to sit here thinking, OK, let me let me get this straight.
We're going to go fight and bleed and die to take this city.
And then the U.S. is going to tell us to go home.
That doesn't make much sense.
Yeah.
Well, it seems like the people of Raqqa probably wouldn't they wouldn't be able to to control that city anyway.
And it doesn't seem like they are really motivated to do that, to try to expand.
They're trying to desperately hold on to the autonomy they've got.
And of course, they've made a deal with the devil in in making this bargain with the Americans, which, of course, they had to do to protect themselves from ISIS, which, you know, was a consequence of American intervention in the first place.
But, yeah, it seems like even if the Americans wanted them to try to take Raqqa and hold it, that they still wouldn't be able to.
And they still would be up against the very same force that ISIS is up against now to their south and east, which would be the very the Shiite alliance, basically, of the Iraqi militias, the Iraqi army, the Kurds force, as you say, and whatever groups of Hezbollah fighters and whatever backing the Syrian government as well.
Right.
And that's the force that's going to end up taking Raqqa.
So you're a libertarian and you don't believe the propaganda about government awesomeness you were subjected to in fourth grade.
You want real history and economics.
Well, learn in your car from professors you can trust with Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom.
And if you join through the Liberty Classroom link at Scott Horton dot org, we'll make a donation to support the Scott Horton show.
Liberty Classroom, the history and economics they didn't teach you.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book of Lou Rockwell's Fascism vs.
Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton at Audible dot com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty from medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution.
Rockwell blasts our status enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism vs.
Capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at Scott Horton dot org.
Yeah, I mean, it appears that way.
And I mean, I think I would think the last thing the US military would want would be to have to take and hold Raqqa.
What are they going to do?
I mean, this is like we're back in Iraq circa 2004, you know, that that can't be what they want to see happening.
So I don't I don't think they know what they want, really.
I think the idea of a partition is something they've long wanted.
But I think the facts on the ground are making that at least seem less likely.
All right.
So what's the point, though, of hitting Assad?
Because it sounds like you're saying that at least it sure looks like a pretext that they were getting near the forces, the Southern Front forces, border guards that America's trained up there.
But they were busy fighting the Islamic State at the time.
Was it when they really just trying to help the Islamic State?
No, I mean, I don't think directly.
I think that was the indirect cause or the indirect effect of what the US was doing.
But, you know, maybe they're still clinging to the fantasy that these troops that they're training on the border will be successful.
But, you know, these this group that they're training on the border has made explicit that their goal is the overthrow of Assad as well.
So if you are I mean, so that I mean, I guess does that make him fair game?
I guess it would.
Certainly if the shoe was on the other foot and we were talking about a group inside the US whose goal was the overthrow of the US government, even if they also wanted to take on a different terrorist force, I can't see Washington looking very kindly at this group.
Yeah.
But so.
Well, do you think that it's possible that that whichever Shiite militia was or whatever that they that they hit, that they actually were targeting these Southern Front forces or that the Americans actually thought that that was a real possibility or they just wanted to, you know, make a point or something?
Well, the word that the that the spokesman for the operation, what's it called?
Intensive Force, whatever the US operation is called there, is that this was a defensive move because they were, you know, the US declared, I think it's a 50 kilometer buffer zone and the US, strange enough, use it as defensive, even though they're in a country illegally occupying space illegally in a country.
They it's it's you know, as I as I mentioned, I think the other day, it's like, you know, Robert comes into your house, shoots you and then claims self-defense.
Yeah.
All right.
So now let's talk about Libya here.
A couple important stories about Libya.
First of all, the Manchester bombing that took place in England, I guess, two weeks ago now.
How many were killed?
I think 20 or something.
I think it's up to 25 or something now.
OK, this is a pop concert.
Young girls.
Yes.
And then so who was this guy that killed them?
When London and Washington decided that the overthrow of Gaddafi was a good thing and the overthrow of Assad was a good thing, they were eager and chomping at the bit to go back to their home countries or in some cases the countries their parents fled and to fight for the overthrow.
These are people that whose parents had been dissidents, that Manchester bomber, his parents had been opposed to Gaddafi and they left, I think, in the early 2000s, I think, if I'm not mistaken, maybe earlier than that.
So the UK having a policy of overthrowing these Gaddafi and Assad, they gave him the green light and these guys went and they spent some time fighting in places like Libya alongside al Qaeda.
And then when it came time to come home, they gave him the green light to come home.
They had to wait, you know, had to waive the regulations, et cetera, et cetera.
So they come home radicalized after fighting side by side.
And in the case of the Manchester bomber, he I don't know, necessarily fought in Libya.
He was in Benghazi when it was so-called liberated.
He also was in Syria and may have gotten some training there.
So this is this is called, you know, I mean, you know, so the wind reaped the whirlwind.
You know, this is the this is this is foreign policy interventionism and sanity in a nutshell.
Yeah.
You know, I mean, I'm sorry, but told you so.
And I mean, specifically, you and me told them so told.
I mean, the archives are there.
I got to do is go to the Ron Paul Institute website.
I got to do is go to antiwar dot com.
Go to Scott Horton dot org.
Look up, you know, spring and summer 2011.
And there's us saying, well, geez, if we support a bunch of terrorists in overthrowing Gaddafi and turn the place into another Osama bin Laden, a stand over there only now in northern Europe.
Why?
Someday these fighters and we got all these European Muslims going back to fight in these jihad's in Libya and in Syria, they're going to be coming home.
I mean, this is us circa 2011, 2012, 2013.
Gee whiz, damn it, Adams.
This could lead to the rise of the Islamic State in eastern Syria.
I know, Scott, wouldn't that be terrible?
Then it comes true.
And then we all these guys come home from fighting in Syria.
They start attacking Brussels and attack in Paris, attack and in the UK.
And and they want to act surprised by any of this.
I mean, gee, we didn't see that coming.
Yeah.
And never even mine told you so in 2002 and 2003.
Right.
But we're talking 2011 when we already saw Bush take Al-Qaeda from 400 men and grow it into 10,000.
And we said, you guys want to take it from 10,000 and grow it to 50.
Yeah.
Why?
Yeah.
And the home secretary, the home secretary at the time was Theresa May.
Interestingly enough.
And what does that same Theresa May, who's now prime minister, although only by a thread now, what is what is her response to this attack?
Well, we got a crackdown on the Internet.
That's really the real problem.
You know, no, it's your policy, you fool.
Yeah, I saw her even say they had a clip going around on Twitter where she said, if human rights laws are getting in the way of protecting us from terrorism, well, then we will change those human rights laws.
Like, wow, Hillary Clinton, why don't you go ahead and just say it in the worst possible way you could frame it?
You know?
Yeah, it's just incredible.
And she wonders why she lost.
But it's also the idea of, you know, cracking down on speech, more surveillance society, everything, everything, everything.
But looking at the foreign policy, that's the one thing they won't touch, either Washington or London or really any of our allies.
So hopefully some of our allies on the continent are starting to get it.
You know, it's certainly not wouldn't be a moment too soon.
Yeah, it's well, I don't know.
I always want to characterize it and I never can decide whether it's more crazy or more stupid or more just evil.
But anyway, or more just frustrating.
Yeah, it's a mix.
It's got to be.
All right.
Now, this is going to sound like it's probably a little bit nuts.
Hooray, safe, Gaddafi is out of prison.
Yeah, I mean, hooray.
I mean, it's interesting, you know, he's obviously neither of us support anyone anywhere, including in our own country who seeks power.
But it is interesting that he'd been held for a while.
And I think technically he was just being detained.
He had been in prison for a few years.
But as of this weekend, he's apparently free.
He's he's gone on to the eastern part of the country.
He said he may get some medical care, but he intends to come back.
He was, I think, the favorite son of of Muammar, but he's very westernized.
I think he went to the London School of Economics, so we can forgive him for that.
But, you know, but here you have, you know, someone who may emerge as an important figure.
Apparently that a lot of the tribes are in support of him as a as a as a figure who can bring the country together.
It would be really the ultimate irony, though, wouldn't it, if all this happened for not?
And here comes here comes Gaddafi's son to turn the place around.
Yeah, well, I mean, and the reason I said yay kind of reserved sort of a yay there again, as you say, huge disclaimer, nobody's supporting certainly any foreign faction.
But in the scheme of things, this was the guy right in the the groundbreaking Washington Times series by Kelly Riddell and Jeffrey Shapiro there about how Dennis Kucinich, the congressman, and Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, and I don't know, would it have been Petraeus at the time at CIA that they maybe it wasn't Petraeus in in 2011 when they tried to short circuit the the war, when they tried to stop Hillary Clinton and you had the DOD and the CIA and Kucinich doing an end run around the secretary of state, the chief diplomat trying to stop the war.
And they were negotiating with Saif Gaddafi.
And according to that Washington Times series, he was the one who, as you were saying, not just was Western educated, but he was very interested in, you know, inheriting the dictatorship there.
And but also in in his mind, at least, you know, modernizing and bringing Libya into the 21st century with, you know, not just economic, but with, you know, political reforms and expand democracy and elections and people power on this kind of thing, because he had vision enough to see that, you know, he didn't want to just sit on a golden throne or, you know, and be fanned or whatever.
He wanted to to do something with the, well, the private property, you know, that was the Libyan state.
He wanted to curate it.
And he was the one who was trying to short circuit the war.
And I guess it's really I think it is probably really lucky that he didn't die in the thing.
I would have thought that he would have that this chance would have been completely spent now.
But maybe this guy could forge a consensus and actually do some of that stuff.
I don't know.
His father has certainly maintained power because he had, you know, cut enough deals with enough factions to keep it.
Right.
So.
Yeah.
And he and he also warned us, if you overthrow me, you're going to have a country overrun with terrorists.
Oh, no, you're crazy.
You're crazy.
You just want to keep in power.
Well, I'm sure he did want to keep in power, but he was also right when it came to that.
Yeah.
So I don't know.
I mean, maybe, you know, they do have some form of a parliament now, maybe a couple of them competing.
But, you know, maybe he can make a bicameral legislature out of the damn thing and try to actually move forward.
I mean, I'm not saying the guy's any kind of miracle worker or even a good person necessarily, but it sounds like at least he's interested in the future good of the society, not just himself, like Uday or Kuse or, you know, Donald Jr.or whoever, you know.
Yeah.
I mean, I think he probably learned at his father's knee how to balance the tribes and the different interests.
Well, I guess that's the other thing, too, is there's probably no one else who possibly could.
That's really the other choice is chaos.
So maybe this is, you know, a possible solution to chaos, I guess, is what I'm really floating here.
Yeah, I guess if it could be, he'll probably get whacked by the CIA or something before he gets a chance.
You know, somebody was telling me that the rumors were true that the CIA has abandoned Haftar and then really a long time ago, I guess, and that now he's cozying up to the Russians.
So I've seen that.
And he is also I mean, as far as I understand, we ran a couple of pieces on it, but he's he's had some contacts with with with Saif as well.
So Haftar and Saif may forge some kind of a of an agreement that remains to be seen.
But Haftar certainly on the ground is making some progress militarily lately.
So who knows?
We may finally see something happen there.
And then so what of Abdul Hakim Belhaj and all the Libyan Islamic fighting group guys there still are in control of the parliament, Tripoli?
Yeah, they are, you know, and I'm and I don't follow every in and out because frankly, there are just too many factions.
My main interest is is what our policy should be and should have been.
Right.
But but, you know, there does appear to be some consolidation under Haftar and he has proved himself fairly widely thus far.
And I think the the UN recognized government has not has not been benefiting from it.
So, you know, I don't know.
I don't know what I don't know what we'll see.
Well, and you know what?
Probably half of this is somewhere hidden is Qatar versus Saudi.
Right.
And and supporting different factions, the Turks and a lot of different a lot of the different groups around there have interests.
You know, you see sometimes those parody charts of alliances in the Middle East and it's just all spaghetti meatballs for fun because there's no way for an outsider to even tell really.
Yeah, it's it's it's it's impossible.
It's too complex.
But we do know one thing.
We need to stay out of it.
Yeah, I got that right.
All right.
Listen, thank you so much for your time on the show and helping clear up some of this stuff for us this week.
Dan.
Thanks, Scott.
Thanks for having me.
All right, you guys, that is the great Dan McAdams.
He's the co-host of the Ron Paul Liberty Report at Ron Paul Liberty Report dot com.
He runs the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity at Ron Paul Institute dot org as well.
And, you know, you can read Ron's weekly column there and a lot of other great stuff.
So really, definitely bookmark that.
Check it out.
Ron Paul Institute dot org.
I'm Scott Horton.
Full archives at Scott Horton dot org and at Libertarian Institute dot org.
And you can follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.
All right.
Thanks.
Hey, awesome.
Scott here.
If you've got a band, a business, a cause or campaign and you need stickers to help promote, check out the BumperSticker dot com at the BumperSticker dot com.
They digitally print with solvent ink.
So you get the photo quality results of digital with the strength and durability of old style screen printing.
I'm sure glad I sold the BumperSticker dot com to Rick back when he's made a hell of a great company out of it.
There are thousands of satisfied customers who agree with me to let the BumperSticker dot com help you get the word out.
That's the BumperSticker dot com at the BumperSticker dot com.
I'm Scott Horton.
Thanks for watching.
